The Case of the South against the North


(Membership has it privileges! To remove this ad: Register NOW!)

USS ALASKA

1st Lieutenant
Forum Host
Joined
Mar 16, 2016
Messages
3,660
So the Protective Tariff was the cost of doing business for the South.
Sir, it was the cost of doing business in the United States regardless of geographic region. Some of the loudest voices against it were the owners of the New York Central, Pennsylvania, B & O, and every other railroad. British rail was cheaper and better than what American producers were capable of turning out at the time. Tariffs effected everyone - for good or for ill.
1580

Cheers,
USS ALASKA
 

USS ALASKA

1st Lieutenant
Forum Host
Joined
Mar 16, 2016
Messages
3,660
So is the argument then that Southerners paid 'tax' in the form of higher prices charged by Northern merchants due to the cost of imports?
Indeed sir, which if true begs the question of why someone didn't import directly to Southern ports, (where the import charges are exactly the same as Northern ports), cut out the Northern 'middleman', charge slightly less than 're-imported' goods from the North, and reap a greater profit for a small increase in transportation cost?

Cheers,
USS ALASKA
 
Last edited:
Joined
Apr 4, 2017
Messages
7,615
Location
Denver, CO
If the federal budget in 1860 was $78M and the south paid half of it, with far less than half of the population, then their share was $40M. Fighting a $2B war with the costs paid up front, with 300,000 lives lost, seems a poor way to avoid and annual obligation of $40M per year, most of which will have to be spent by a Confederate government anyway to fight Indians and prevent slave raiders from emptying Tennessee or Kentucky of slaves.
https://www.usgovernmentspending.com/piechart_1859_US_fed
 

jgoodguy

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Retired Moderator
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Messages
35,293
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
Indeed sir, which if true begs the question of why someone didn't import directly to Southern ports, (where the import charges are exactly the same as Northern ports), cut out the Northern 'middleman', charge slightly less than 're-imported' Northern goods, and reap a greater profit for a small increase in transportation cost?

Cheers,
USS ALASKA
Economic Aspects Of Southern Sectionalism, 1840-1861 Russel
University of Illinois Studies in the Social Sciences, V11, No. 1-2, March-June, 1923
Economic aspects of southern sectionalism, 1840-1861Emphasis mine.

Chapter I agitation in behalf of direct trade with Europe, 1837-1839

The short story is that Southerners resented Northern economic dominance. They had a lot of meeting with little result.

Prior to Independence Southern ports imported and export the same as the Northern but after independence imports stagnated. Exports(Cotton?) grew very rapidity. From the available records, The South did not consume their proportionate share of imports.

In colonial days the exports and imports of the Southern colonies compared very favorably in amount with those of the Northern; but shortly after independence from Great Britain was achieved, it became apparent that the importing business of the nation was being concentrated in Northern ports. As the years went by the concentration became more and more pronounced. While the exports of the staple producing states grew at a phenomenal rate, the value of the imports into Southern ports remained almost stationary or grew very slowly. This was particularly true in the case of the Atlantic ports. In the case of New Orleans, for long almost the sole outlet for the commerce of the rapidly filling Mississippi valley, there was early in the last century phenomenal increase in both exports and imports; but after about 1835 the latter increased very slowly, while the former continued to grow at the same remarkable rate. Prior to the Civil War the imports of the Northern states greatly exceeded their exports. In the Southern States the reverse was the case. A com- parison of the exports from all Southern ports with those from all Northern ports shows that after about 1830 the former always exceeded, and sometimes greatly exceeded, the latter. The imports of the Southern ports, however, were only a fraction of the imports of Northern ports, and became proportionally less as the years went by.1 If the growing superiority of the North in population be remembered, and the comparison be made on the basis of population, the disparity is still striking. It indicates that either the people of the South did not consume their proportionate share of the nation's imports, or that Northern merchants imported largely on Southern account, or both.

View attachment 257916
 
Joined
Apr 4, 2017
Messages
7,615
Location
Denver, CO
I suspect they did have a gripe with the northern states. But the federal government was small and most of its efforts were spent on naval vessels and fighting Indians.
The real problem with the northern states is the banks were extremely sound and were driving the unbacked currencies out by buying them up and redeeming them.
The northern states were far ahead in education.
Not only that but by the north was favored by geography with the Great Lakes and good railroad routes.
The things the southerners may have resented were probably that the northern folks had created both a merchant and military navy, a banking system, railroads and the beginnings of an educational system.
The south in contrast had built their version of the ancient Roman Empire. Without the monumental architecture.
 
Joined
Apr 4, 2017
Messages
7,615
Location
Denver, CO
I suppose they thought they might function without protection from the US government. But they would have found the freight charges imposed by the British and French to be burdensome and credit for railroads in Texas hard to come by.
 

USS ALASKA

1st Lieutenant
Forum Host
Joined
Mar 16, 2016
Messages
3,660
...and credit for railroads in Texas hard to come by.
Credit for any internal improvements would have been difficult to obtain or extremely expensive. If the South wanted to become a supplier of the finished products or even a semi-finished products from the wealth of her raw materials, she is going to need a greatly expanded industrial infrastructure. Unless she wished to remain simply a provider of basic resources...and import much of what she needed.
1751

Cheers,
USS ALASKA
 

uaskme

First Sergeant
Joined
Nov 9, 2016
Messages
1,744

cash

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Messages
33,524
Location
Right here.
Bet it was a great White Perspective Analysis. Wonder how the Negroes viewed it. Yankee masters sent them back to the Plantations on Contracts the Federal Government chose for them, all forced.
They were happy to be paid for their work and to be safe from being sold away from their families or having their families sold away from them.
 

OpnCoronet

Lt. Colonel
Joined
Feb 23, 2010
Messages
10,100
The northern states were far ahead in education.
Not only that but by the north was favored by geography with the Great Lakes and good railroad routes.

The things the southerners may have resented were probably that the northern folks had created both a merchant and military navy, a banking system, railroads and the beginnings of an educational system.
The south in contrast had built their version of the ancient Roman Empire. Without the monumental architecture.






Very true, in fact, this discrepancy, did not just happen where and when it did, by just luck.

In economic terms, the North had developed a market for imports, because it had a growing population or consumers, with enough disposable income to support the cost of importing.

The South, IMO, did not share a proportional part of the Nation's imports because, the markets for those imports was not proportional, i.e., the bigger part of the market was North, Not South.
 

Similar threads




(Membership has it privileges! To remove this ad: Register NOW!)
Top